Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
> space. Supposedly these are the best.
>
> On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
> world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
> point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
> because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
> gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?
>

there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
<http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI>

Advertisements

On 2/16/2013 11:19 AM, PeterN wrote:
> On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
>> space. Supposedly these are the best.
>>
>> On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
>> world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
>> point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
>> because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
>> gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?
>>
>
> there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
> <http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI>
>
> To sum it up!
> Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
> size doesn't fit all.
>

I forgot to add:
Here is a video htat explains the differences:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q>

On 17/02/2013 12:45 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-02-16 14:49:56 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
>
>> In article <511fb4c2$0$10801$-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> says...
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q>
>>
>> Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?
>
> Almost everybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, only making
> the conversion to sRGB & 8-bit JPEG on export.
>
> Also anybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, and then
> performing additional editing in an external editor such as Photoshop or
> some other stand alone applications such as some of the NIK offerings.
>
> The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
> exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
> as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.
>
> A note in the LR4 preferences reads:
> "16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving color
> detais from Lightroom".
> and
> "The AdobeRGB (1998) colorspace cannot encompass the full range of
> colors available within Lightroom."
>
And if you can't see it (because your monitor "only" covers aRGB), then....?
> and
> "The sRGB colorspace cannot encompass the full range of colors available
> within Lightroom."
>
> There is also this note in the LR Preferences regarding using 8-bit in
> LR or in an external editor:
> "8-bit files are smaller and more compatible with various programs and
> plug-ins, but will not preserve fine tonal detail as well as 16-bit
> data. This is particularly true in wide gamut color spaces such as
> ProPhoto RGB."
>
>>
>> Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. If your product is only going to be viewed online
> there is probably no good reason to work in ProPhoto RGB, unless you are
> trying to work the best colorspace for your software, and then convert
> to 8-bit sRGB to save as JPEGs for online presentation.
>
Conversion is lossy - better to not "convert" but to apply a colourspace
when saving (ie to jpeg) from colourspace-agnostic raw.
>
There's a potential gotcha with 8 bit files and >sRGB colourspace.
A one integer difference in R,G, or B value, particularly in the
mid-tones, easily exceeds Delta E 1.0 colour variance, so the finest
adjustment which can be made is larger than the smallest difference that
can be seen by the average person, and integer rounding of gradients is
much more likely to be a problem (posterisation/banding).

I can't see much point - if any - in using >sRGB for printing unless
you're correctly soft-proofing. Then you're still going to need to be
very careful. For the web - it's completely pointless in almost every
case, and opens a can of worms.

While there might be some overlap where some printers exceed aRGB gamut,
mostly the printers won't even cover full sRGB colourspace let alone
aRGB, despite (usually deliberately "obfuscative") claims by the
manufacturers.

On 2/16/2013 8:14 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <2013021615450475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> says...
>> The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
>> exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
>> as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.
>
> That would mean a file size of for instance 144MB for a 24MP camera. Are
> you really saving processed RAW images at 6 bytes/pixel? Or are you
> saving as ProPhoto JPEGs?
>
> Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?
>

If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter. Indeed you
might get worse results because of interpolation of interpolation
issues. It;s only if you are shooting RAW that it could become an issue.

<snip
>>
> Conversion is lossy - better to not "convert" but to apply a colourspace
> when saving (ie to jpeg) from colourspace-agnostic raw.
>

True
> >
> There's a potential gotcha with 8 bit files and >sRGB colourspace.
> A one integer difference in R,G, or B value, particularly in the
> mid-tones, easily exceeds Delta E 1.0 colour variance, so the finest
> adjustment which can be made is larger than the smallest difference that
> can be seen by the average person, and integer rounding of gradients is
> much more likely to be a problem (posterisation/banding).
>

Yup!
> I can't see much point - if any - in using >sRGB for printing unless
> you're correctly soft-proofing. Then you're still going to need to be
> very careful. For the web - it's completely pointless in almost every
> case, and opens a can of worms.
>
> While there might be some overlap where some printers exceed aRGB gamut,
> mostly the printers won't even cover full sRGB colourspace let alone
> aRGB, despite (usually deliberately "obfuscative") claims by the
> manufacturers.

Depends on the printer. IIRC The Epson 2880, 3880 and up will do 19 bit
depth printing.

On 17/02/2013 8:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <> wrote:
>
>> In article <51203132$0$10790$-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> says...
>>> If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
>> Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
>> processing.
>>
>>From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
>> exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
>> AdobeRGB, how would you know?
>
> Printer
>

If its the printer, that you use to evaluate the image, isn't a waste of
money buying a monitor to read that quality?

| >From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
| >exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
| >AdobeRGB, how would you know?
|
| Printer
| --

Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
output profiles for color management in the printer to
ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:
> > >From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
> > >exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
> > >AdobeRGB, how would you know?
> >
> > Printer
>
> But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
> saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
> it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
> time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.

In article <kfqrkd$su1$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:
> Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
> the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
> a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
> the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
> Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
> hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
> to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
> But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
> with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
> output profiles for color management in the printer to
> ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
> Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
> to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
> all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
> but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.

you don't use prophoto for the printer. ideally, you have a custom
profile made for your printer, paper and ink combination. short of
that, you can use the bundled profiles, which are reasonably accurate
and good enough for most purposes, assuming you stick to the
manufacturer's paper and ink.

when you print, there is a profile conversion done from the display to
the printer space. you can do it in photoshop or in the printer, just
don't do it in both (a common mistake). where to do the conversion is
debatable. choose one and be sure it's disabled in the other.

Thank you, both. The images help. I was getting
confused by the use of the terms "color profile"
and "color space". I see from the screenshots
that color management and printer profiles are
two different things.

| But you cannot adjust the RAW conversion parameters if you can't see the
| effect on the screen.
|
| If the screen is only able to display an AdobeRGB gamut, you can't edit
| the image in the out of monitor gamut areas. You are essentially blind.
|

Yes, but I noticed an interesting point in the linked youtube
video: When the author was demonstrating tools like saturation
he suggested that one should carefully watch the image. If
the saturation slider is moved with no effect on the image then
one knows that changes are being made that are not visible
via the monitor. That's not a solution to monitor limitations, but
I found it an interesting tutorial of how to at least minimize color
distortion.

| You'd need a monitor with a Prophoto gamut, but do these beasts exist?

I'm curious about that, too. From posts here and from reading
linked articles I get the impression that one might find *partial*
improvement if one spends thousands of dollars.

| Have you considered turning off the printer's colour management and
| using your print application (Photo Shop, or whatever) to do the task
| instead?

I have now, thanks to nospam and Savageduck.
I wasn't clear about color mgmt. vs color profiles. I'd
been doing experiments with various settings on both
sides but hadn't really understood what it was doing.

> I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
> the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
> of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
> CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
> same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.
>

When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.

While looking to see if there was an advantage of one method over the
other, I came across this article, which, while quite informative, seems
a tad confusing. I am wondering what others do, and why.

On 2/17/2013 4:16 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <> wrote:
>
>> In article <51203132$0$10790$-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> says...
>>> If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
>> Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
>> processing.
>>
>>From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
>> exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
>> AdobeRGB, how would you know?
>
> Printer
>

On 2/17/2013 6:57 AM, Rob wrote:
> On 17/02/2013 8:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <51203132$0$10790$-secrets.com>, PeterN
>>> says...
>>>> If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
>>> Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
>>> processing.
>>>
>>> From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
>>> exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
>>> AdobeRGB, how would you know?
>>
>> Printer
>>
>
>
> If its the printer, that you use to evaluate the image, isn't a waste of
> money buying a monitor to read that quality?

Yes. If you only print without making fine color adjustments.
AdobeRGB is a much wider gamut than sRGB. sRGB was intended for web
viewing, not digital art printing.

On 2/17/2013 9:44 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <>, Eric Stevens
> says...
>
>> >From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
>>> exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
>>> AdobeRGB, how would you know?
>>
>> Printer
>
> But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
> saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
> it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
> time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.
>

In article <51213ed5$0$10814$-secrets.com>, PeterN
<> wrote:
> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
> you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.

assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
know its tag to be wrong.

convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
you want.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:
> >> But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
> >> saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
> >> it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
> >> time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.
> >
> >softproofing.
>
> We are discussing the situation where the printer's gamut exceeds that
> of the monitor, remember. In that situation soft proofing can never be
> a complete answer.

it doesn't need to be complete. softproofing easily lets you preview
what you will get on the printer, even if it isn't perfect.

In article <kfr2n1$41u$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:
> Thank you, both. The images help. I was getting
> confused by the use of the terms "color profile"
> and "color space". I see from the screenshots
> that color management and printer profiles are
> two different things.

colour management the the subject, which includes profiles, conversions
between them and more.

if you want to learn more, read this:
<http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!